Thread: MO: City won't pass new illegal-immigration laws

City won't pass new illegal-immigration laws
Residents divided over board resolution



By Mary Shapiro
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:00 PM CDT


Valley Park's pledge to not implement future laws dealing with illegal immigration has made some people happy.

But others say the move doesn't go far enough, or goes too far.

The Board of Aldermen unanimously approved a resolution June 18 to not approve any new laws addressing illegal immigration.
However, officials will continue their legal defense of three lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the city's existing illegal-immigration laws.

Jim Rothery of Valley Park, a member of the Valley Park Citizens for Responsible Government (VPCRG), said the resolution, an earlier version of which was proposed by the group, "is a fine example of how the aldermen and the citizens can work together for the good of Valley Park."

However, he added, "There are still some issues pending in the court that (the city is) still in the process of defending, and the

legal fees continue to mount."

Larry Mueller of Valley Park was more blunt in his assessment of the resolution.

"What was passed by the board has nothing to do with what was presented by citizens (earlier this month) to the city," he said.

"Residents are saying they want to stop the legal spending on this issue -- now," he said. "The resolution says (the city) will finish spending money to defend the current legislation and then not introduce any new laws. That's an irresponsible dodge of what we've requested."

But Pete Erbe of Valley Park contended, during the board's meeting, that he supported the city's legal battle to defend its laws restricting employment of and renting to illegal immigrants. Erbe said the city shouldn't back down at all.

"I'm proud of this city for being progressive on an important issue," he said.

"Despite what others may claim, Valley Park does have the authority (to enact such legislation)," he said. "The city needed to take this action now before the problem gets worse. Giving up is not the answer, and waiting (for the state or federal government) to do something isn't the way to get anything done."

Some aldermen -- and some residents -- have asked regularly for the exact legal costs of the city defending the legislation, the first of which was passed by the board last summer.

"We are not in favor of illegal immigration in Valley Park or any other city in the U.S., but we feel that these particular ordinances are costing our little city too much money for very little positive return," Rothery said. "We also question the rationale for them in the first place."

Leo Anglo of Valley Park called the resolution a good start in the right direction.

"Our current ordinances on immigration are futile and an irresponsible expense," he said.

Jewell Mosley of Valley Park, a VPCRG member, said she wanted to see the city "thrive and not just survive."

"And I applaud the leadership of Alderman Don Carroll for bringing the resolution to the board, because this is what the city needs and it's time for us to move on."

Mary Fehner of Valley Park called the illegal-immigration laws a significant waste of time and city money.

"Pursuit of the legislation is not in the interests of residents or businesses," Fehner said.

Jim Morris of Valley Park disagreed, saying he couldn't understand why some aldermen were backing down through the resolution. He added that the issue is too important.

"I want to show support for Mayor Jeff Whitteaker and the Board of Aldermen in their fight against illegal immigration," said Harold Tubbs of Valley Park,

Doug Tipton, a Chesterfield resident, praised the city's laws. He said they set a standard of excellence in fighting the war against illegal immigration.

Janet Renner of Wildwood presented the city with a $100 check for its legal defense fund.

She said a handful of landlords, business people and their advocates oppose the city's illegal-immigration laws and Valley Park's costs of defending the lawsuits.

"History will show the city made the right decision for this city and America," Renner said.

You can contact Mary Shapiro at mshapiro@yourjournal.com.
Write in your Journal!

Moving to news section.

Sounds like some cities are going to be 'spent' into accepting this.

They will either have to go broke to do something or turn into something other than an American city. Shameful.

Mayor considers vetoing immigration bill


Last modified: Monday, July 23, 2007 11:41 AM CDT

By Mary Shapiro

Mayor Jeff Whitteaker is leaning toward vetoing legislation, passed July 16 by the Board of Aldermen, that would remove part of its law relating to illegal immigrants, which had banned landlords from renewing occupancy permits if they rent to those individuals.

"I have until the next board meeting on August 6 to decide if I'll veto the bill," he said.

Whitteaker said that since the laws were passed, the city has spent $89,533 on legal expenses to defend itself against various lawsuits.

He told the board, "We're nearly at the end of the bridge (with lawsuits opposing the laws). Only a small amount of additional money will be spent before the judge makes a ruling, on something could affect the whole country, and I hope we can finish this out."

The board voted 5-3 in favor of the law. John Brust, Don Carroll, Mike Pennise, Ed Walker and Mike White were in favor, while Dan Adams, Randy Helton and Steve Drake were opposed.

In June, the board approved a resolution to not pass any new laws addressing illegal immigration. However, officials will continue their legal defense of three lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the city's existing illegal-immigration laws.

City Attorney Eric Martin said the repeal action July 16 was taken based on advice from special legal counsel "so we can concentrate on provisions of the laws affecting employers (who hire illegal immigrants)."

Pennise said that while many living outside the city have indicated they support Valley Park's efforts, "we're not getting enough help from them - and we don't have that kind of money (to continue fighting lawsuits)."

"The federal government has let us down (in not passing effective new laws or by enforcing existing ones) - and our state doesn't care," he said.

Pennise asked aldermen to consider repealing all illegal immigration laws, but the board declined.

"I'm tired of fighting and wasting money," he said.

Carroll agreed. He said, "The federal and state governments should handle this issue, not a city of 6,500 people. We can't keep up financially with those suing us, and we need to put a stop to this by getting out (of litigation) as quick and easy as possible. This is too expensive. It was a good idea, but we can't afford to continue."

White said the city's laws "were started for the right reasons.

"People tell us we're doing the right thing, but they fall away when it's time to financially support us," White said.

Resident Leo Anglo said, "It is irresponsible for the city to expose itself to such an expense. He said repealing illegal immigration laws would allow the city to focus on issues that will have more impact on the city.

Adams, while agreeing with Pennise on the lack of state and federal government help on the issue, asked, "Do we just allow illegal aliens to roam freely, unchecked?

"This issue will affect the ability of my children and grandchildren to find good-paying jobs. It will take small communities to move this issue forward."

Drake said, "This fight is paramount. It's about our community and country."

Whitteaker insisted, "I'm not a quitter, and I'd do all this again tomorrow."

http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/ar ... al.ii1.txt

Why does are legal expenses so high? Couldn't some of the work be done by volunteer's. Surely there are some people who could do some work.

Maybe cities need to hire some attorneys who are sympathetic to the cause, who wouldn't hold them up for fees.

Also, if the cities are spending that kind of money, so is the ACLU.

It must be very hard for them, the people are supporting the illegals, school, health, etc. and then they have to pay lawyers also, it would hurt the small town I live in.

I am surprised more lawyers do not volunteer their services. Hazelton Pa. had to run a fund raiser and they were still having problems, so pathetic!!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- "ACTIVE PROJECTS"----PLEASE GET INVOLVED
CALLING ALL ALIPACERS AND LOOKIE LOU'S DO YOU WANT OUR LAWS ENFORCED?
PLEASE HELP! LINK BELOW!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=74297
Stop the "Dream Act" in-state tuition for illegals!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=73960
DIXIE NEEDS HELP ON A NEW PROJECT!!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=73375
ALIPAC needs donations to stay afloat and in the fight Please give what you can!!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=C ... page&pid=9

Why does are legal expenses so high? Couldn't some of the work be done by volunteer's. Surely there are some people who could do some work.

Maybe cities need to hire some attorneys who are sympathetic to the cause, who wouldn't hold them up for fees.

Also, if the cities are spending that kind of money, so is the ACLU.

The ACLU has a very large advantage over a private attorney. They are paid a salary and don't have to concern themselves with paying the rent, electric bill, secretaries, malpractice insurance, etc etc. They can, therefore, spend as much time as they please on a case. Every time an attorney files a pleading in a case it has to be answered by the opposing attorney. The ACLU can bog a case down by filing motions, interrogatories, taking endless depositions and filing interlocutory appeals. They, of course, know that it is impossible for an attorney in private practice to defend against them and they use it to the hilt. It takes a Judicial Watch or a firm of their ilk to put a case on even footing.